Is cost enough to justify an unaccredited program?

Do you see, Nosborne, how much weight is given to accreditation in the above statement? It is implied (at least it appears to me to be the case -- correct me if I am wrong, please) that some thing is perhaps not likely: a scholar carrying weight all by him or herlself. Take out the ol' blue pen and remove the word "unaccredited" and one has:

Before one can answer the question with the word "unaccredited" in it, one must answer the question without the word where the ellipses now are.

Does the scholar's work carry weight all by itself? It must. If you strip out all the citations from a dissertation, take out the acknowledgements section, strip out everything contributed by the body of knowledge -- there must be something left at the end of the excision, or no work was done at all.

Original math proofs, empirical gathering and analyzing of data, qualitative rhetoric, or whatever serves as the basis of the scholar's method(s) must remain, absent any pedigree, or what one has is no more than a nicely worded resume and/or audit of past work, done by others.

How much remains, after such a mental cutting away of otherness, is what is called the original contribution. This applies to all doctoral level work that requires original contribution (and not all legitimate programs do require this), regardless of the pedigree of the institution under whose auspices the work was done. And it is "that scholar" who did "that" work.

It isn't Jake_A's professor to ideas relationship who did it. It isn't the North East West South Commission on Accreditation of Universities with Names not Containing Vowels who did it. It isn't the scholars whose work is cited who did it. It isn't the librarian(s) who pointed the scholar to the right stack who did it. What's left at the end of the day is what the candidate did. The rest is window dressing.

Now, absent the window dressing (which is not trivial, I admit, but I am simply not discussing the window dressing portions of the dissertation here), if we throw in the concepts of "accredited institution" and "unaccredited institution" -- we are left with some questions. Here are two of those questions:

• Is accreditation necessary to guarantee that original work is done?
• Is that guarantee worth the cost of accreditation?

Accreditation doesn't speak to the first question. The committee is supposed to be the final body responsible for determining whether or not, after all the dressing is gone, that what remains is solid and original.

The answer to the second question is a function of how much the person who has the money to spend is of the belief that paying the extra money for the imprimatur of accreditation will actually guarantee that the committee will live up to their responsibility.

Now, some have suggested here that the two most important things that accreditation's cost will eliminate are:

• The "dreaded tick, tick, tick".
• The dreaded "lifetime spent in defense".

Surely, if a person wishes to avoid either of those things, and if that person feels that paying the extra money will somehow guarantee these things won't happen if one pays the money, then the investment may well be worth it. Then, what that person is believing he or she is paying for is not a quality educational experience, but an insurance policy.

If his or her work is found lacking, that person believes he or she can now always fall back on "But it is from an accredited institution." I do not have the time or inclination to get into how that and a buffifty is really a rather thin veneer, indeed.

This rather thin, but still nonetheless comforting fallback, might be worth the extra expense to some. It might not be worth it to others.

 

Brilliant. Thanks, Jake.

 

So many contingencies. The answers to these very basic questions all depend on so many factors that it makes it quite clear that the number of cases in which an unaccredited degree might actually be the better choice is so small that it's hardly worth discussing. Especially since Quinn doesn't really want to answer any of the questions I asked.
Jack

 

Jack:

Please don't ascribe to me motivations and desires. What I "really want" is a personal matter. In counselling-speak: please don't venture into my personal psychic space, as it makes me feel very uncomfortable.

Thank you for your consideration.

 

Quinn, would you take another run at answering the earlier questions in a simpler way which the rest of us can understand, while of course remaining true to your own beliefs in the matter?

 

I'll give it one more go in an upcoming post, and then I must retreat to deal with chapter 7 of my dissertation.

 

Wait another minute, please!

Jake and QTJ,

I "get" both of your posts, I think. But the question I am asking is maybe a little more "fact specific".

There was a time when I was under the impression (right or wrong) that Kennedy-Western arranged for dissertation supervision by "moonlighting" junior doctoral faculty from various accredited institutions. Suppose for a moment that this model was in fact accurate.

(Now, KW receives a LOT of flack from this forum, from various governmental entities, from former students...lots of folks, and it is not my idea to defend that particular institution. I am merely using KW as an example.)

Does the approval of one's dissertation at an unaccredited institution by persons holding degrees from accredited institutions make any difference to either of your analyses?

This is meant to be a specific, if theoretical, application of what I took to be QTJ's point; the use of an unaccredited program as an opportunity to study a particular research question with a particular scholar.

 

Another go at answering those questions

* Once a person "earns" this unaccredited doctoral degree because it is EXACTLY what one wants, what is the expectation, what is the hope as to how this degree will be regarded by others?

Some people will want to be regarded as having earned a doctorate at par with all other doctorates. Some people will feel no need for the external regard of others. Many people, regardless of which end of that spectrum they fall, will at the very least feel a certain pride in their accomplishment.

* Can a person actually use a degree from ABC University for gainful employment without the dreaded tick, tick, tick ?

Some employers will accept such degrees, some will not. There are not enough statistics as to who will, although I believe Dr. Douglas' doctoral work is a signpost in the right direction in this particular matter. The field is, as yet, far too unexplored to make a final proclamation, and to say the least, since it is not my field of study, even were the field well-established at this point, I am not qualified to proclaim what the predominant utility is as pertains to employment.

As for the "dreaded tick, tick, tick" it has been my experience that the ticking scenario relates more to outright fraud (claiming degrees from existing universities without having such degrees) than it has to do with unaccredited degrees. There have been cases where unaccredited degrees have exploded, but these appear to be cases where either an accredited degree was explicitly required for some outcome (the job, the raise, the job role, or whatever). This is an impression, arrived at through having witnessed anecdote, and is not a final judgment.

* Will it be respected by others who actually know about the unaccredited nature of the granting institution?

It's really hard to say without referring to my specific case, because I do not know the experiences of others intimately enough to pass a proclamation. Since it is not my intent to apologize for my degrees here, all I can say is what I said before on this one: That depends on the others.

I will mention again that I am unsure what exactly is meant by the phrase "actually know about the unaccredited nature". I know what that means in English, to be sure, but that phrase packs with it a lot of baggage that has yet to be defined in context.

* Or must a person forever carry with them a copy of their dissertation, offering it to whomever might question their degree, hoping that they will read it and be impressed?

If someone's ultimate goal is to impress others, they very well may feel the need to hurl their dissertation at any and all comers. I am unsure, however, just who would be impressed by such a venture. It might be wiser, in the case of the unaccredited doctorate holder to simply provide access to the dissertation in some unassuming way, should someone out there wish to take a peek at it. In any case, if a dissertation was written, it ought to be in the public record. If the degree was by publication, it is assumed the publication is already in the record, so that is not so important a point.

In today's technological world, putting up one's dissertation on one's site, or even having it in PDF on a USB data key in one's pocket is not all that difficult a feat to accomplish. It might serve to be a disarming approach, should one be "challenged" about not having done any substantial work, to simply provide the URL or pass over the USB key and say, "Res ipsa loquitor."

That said, it has been my experience that those who would so challenge do not respond favorably to such counterchallenges. One example of a response given in such a case is: "It's not my responsibility to read your work -- it's your responsibility to ...." I'm not entirely in agreement with this, since the work is the capstone which led to the conferral, and anyone not prepared to challenge the actual work, is (if I may cite Wittgenstein's dissertation's last sentence) up against this:

I will now take Wittgenstein's ultimate statement to heart and return to being silent for a while while I tackle other obligations.

Be well.

(Addendum -- while the board will still let me "edit" -- in response to Nosborne's last point....

While the opportunity to study under a specific person is one reason one might wish to go the unaccredited route, that can be done with accredited institutions as well. I brought it up because that, in conjunction with total cost may be what tips the scale for some scholars.)

 

Nosborne: I will attempt to answer your question without beating about the bush.

Yes, it does, but up to a point. This is because it is not the professor's but the institution's name and reputation that attches to the degree - in this case, an unaccredited institution - under whose auspices the degree is awarded. But an esteemed scholar's supervision, if indeed real supervision and critique occurs, is worth its weight in gold.

On a related note, Nosborne, it is a fact that KW"U" is reputed to have a policy of not hiring its own graduates or holders of unaccredited degrees!

That must tell one something: The fact that unaccredited KW"U" itself has such a low opinion of unaccredited degrees (which, it doles out in large numbers each year) that it refuses to use anyone with such degrees! Quite telling!

This is true at KW"U" even when holders of such prior unaccredited degrees completed their work elsewhere, under the aegis of a respected, accredited scholar!

In a strange way, the case of the unaccredited and un-wonderful KW"U" helps to answer Nosborne's - and Jack's - original questions in this thread. The unaccredited degree - and a student working towards an unaccredited degree under "supervision" of a respected (read: accredited) professor, is limited in certain major circumstances and happenstances.

I hope I did not beat around the bush - and if I did - here goes:

"Does the approval of one's dissertation at an unaccredited institution by persons holding degrees from accredited institutions make any difference?"

Yes - to the student (and only to the student), if the student's interest could only be satisfied at no other than at an unaccredited place of learning and tutelage.

No - to me, and I think, to much of society in general, because reputation and character and respect and third-party quality assurance mechanisms count oftentimes more than the oft-cited learning for learning's sake especially because, ultimately, that learning's import transfers to the larger society in some measurable way.

Ok, I did beat about the bush .... but only a little, I hope, and reasonably so.



Thanks.

 

I think that unaccredited programs are most appropriate for personal edification, where there isn't any expectation that other people will respond to whatever degrees result (if any).

In fact, many of the most interesting unaccredited programs don't offer degrees at all. (I'm actually kind of attracted to that kind of intellectual purity.)

Problems with unaccredited programs typically arise when the whole doctoral peacock thing becomes the goal, rather than whatever education and scholarship went into it.

Non-accredited schools are most apt to be accepted among people who are already familiar with them. An example might be an unaccredited seminary that prepares clergy for the denomination that runs it. Another example might be a scientific research institute that decides to roll out a graduate program after having established a solid reputation in its discipline. This is why I think that unaccredited schools do best as niche players in specialized situations.

Their degrees might not do as well out in the general population who have never heard of them. Graduates still have the option of trying to make a convincing case for their school, but that might not work if people aren't qualified (or willing) to listen.

My answer would be 'virtually nothing'. I mean, countless people have done excellent work outside university contexts entirely. That doesn't imply that lack of higher education is equivalent to a doctorate.

But I put the word 'virtually' in there because if more students than this one are doing excellent work that bears the name of the unaccredited school, and if word of that scholarly productivity gets out into the professional world, the unaccredited school might start to generate a reputation for itself.

 

That would be a personal recommendation, wouldn't it? That happens all the time, though usually outside doubtful university contexts.

But if an unaccredited school can put a student in touch with a real scholar (or more ideally, more than one), scholars who are actually willing to put in the time to work with the student and aren't just moonlighting to make some extra cash, then I think that's a very real plus for the unaccredited school.

But I'm not sure if the unaccredited school's awarding a degree tells us anything that the recommendation didn't.

 

I have a feeling that you'll be OK despite some minor discomfort.
Jack

 

Absolutely agree. Those examples are similar to some kids in certain public schools who think they don't need to study at all because they are so sure they're going to grow up to be NBA or NFL stars, or successful actors or musicians. A few might get there but certainly not all who think they will, in fact the overwhelming majority won't get there. The reality of percentage is not on their side, but then as a society we do tend to overstress to kids that they can do or be anything they want and that over-emphasis hurts rather than helps them. To leverage one's future on being one of those extremely rare exceptions is foolish.

True, but it assumes any conventional ultility is needed or even desired. Unk Janko as well as a few others in this thread mentioned being either interested in or already involved in unaccredited study for pure pleasure and the opportunity to study with those of one's choosing. No expected utility = no harm done.

Kit

 

Thanks for the explanations, Quinn.
Two things:
1) it's res ipsa loquitur, not loquitor
2) good luck on your new chapter.

New posters on this thread: thanks for keeping this thread stellar!

 

So the answer remains where it always was; will THIS degree meet the student's foreseeable needs.

Thanks to all.

 

Yes -- thanks to all. A thoroughly interesting exchange of ideas.

Janko:

loquitur, eh? Hmmm... seen it both ways, but the "ur" spelling seems to predominate, you're right.

And thanks for the "good luck" on the chapter. As I'm approaching the Collatz Conjecture in this chapter, I'll need it.

Nosborne:

So the answer remains where it always was; will THIS degree meet the student's foreseeable needs.

Yes. No lines have moved in the sand. The answer remains where it always was. Even so, even if the answer hasn't moved a bit -- the people asking the questions seem to have moved a bit in the right direction towards civil discourse. Which is more valuable than the answer's having moved, IMO.

Cheers.

 

Oh, the "needs" question isn't the only one to ask.

There are three consumers of higher education: students, employers, and the general public. That question is for students only. Employers and the general public need an answer to this one, or something like it:

Does this degree represent what such a degree normally represents? (Degree as proxy, representing that the holder has met the academic requirements for such an award.)

Degrees from accredited schools do. Degrees from schools that were not accedited at the time, but have since become accredited, might. (Judgment call.) Degrees from schools that are not accredited might. (Again, judgment call.)

Because there are so very many variables involved, it is difficult for prospective students to accurately predict--and therefore, answer--the "present and future needs" question.

And even if the "needs" question is answered in the affirmative, that is no shield against other bad things besides lack of utility. Anyone who has been publicly or privately humiliated over his/her otherwise legal degree can attest to that.

 

Well, shoot.

The good Doctor has pointed out a nasty problem with the "foreseeable needs" test. Just when I thought it was safe to go back in the water!

IIUC, the objection is that no student contemplating completing a degree from an unaccredited institution can possibly KNOW whether the degree will "meet his foreseeable needs" unless he HAS NO foreseeable needs.

THAT means that no student can actually assess whether the cost savings is worth it because he doesn't know what the degree will be worth!

QED: Except for personal satisfaction, it's NEVER appropriate to seek a degree from an unaccredited institution?

(Maybe substitute "accredited or otherwise professionally recognized" for "accredited"?)

Well, gents? What say ye?

 

Of course Dr. Douglas is correct. (Count on him to throw a monkey wrench into what was thought to be settled. )

I do think though that the question of 'personal responsibility' extends past just the student. It is also any employer's responsibility to check such things as legitimacy of degrees claimed. Too many don't, as Dr. Douglas has also pointed out in the past.

As far as perceptions of the general public, one need look no further than today's "heros". Cussing rap stars, abusive athletes, immoral but big-mouthed actors, heck even Monica Lewinsky has been granted celebrity status for her uhhh, 'accomplishments'. Things being as they are, I wouldn't put too much stock, or worry, into public perception.

Kit

 

Rich has made some very good points and I've seized on the one above because it comes closest to the question (#2) I asked on 10/21. The transparency of the process is critical in these situations. Often it is impossible to know the process when dealing with an unaccredited university. Most of the time you can't even find a list of the faculty members. This leads to my final comment.

There is a wide range within the category "unaccredited universities." It spans a continuum from the most blatant of degree mills up to schools that are actually pretty decent, or in some small number of cases, really quite good. Because of this, I do not think it is useful to talk about "unaccredited universities." What one might say about the best of them does not hold true for those at the bottom. Indictments of the bottom-dwellers do not necessarily apply to those at the top of the list. Some might say that a similar range exists with the accredited schools but I think we recognize that this is a false argument. I believe that we need to talk about specific schools, not "unaccredited schools" because that category has ceased to have significant meaning.

A degree from an unaccredited university can, in my opinion, be a good degree if there is some clear way that someone can check up on the process. This is what accreditation is, a quality assurance measure on the process. Who are the faculty? Can they be contacted? What are the degree requirements? What specific courses are required? Is there a syllabus? What textbooks are used? What examinations were given? What essays are required? Accreditation signifies a minimum standard. If a school is not accredited then it must be prepared to demonstrate to my satisfaction that it meets those standards if the school wants me to look favorably upon their degrees.

If a student produces a piece of research, let's say it's from a research-oriented PhD program, and it's a quality piece of work, this does not necessarily say anything about the university whose name appears on the diploma. One of the biggest problems I have with these scenarios is when someone claims that because their research was of good quality, this means that the school is of good quality.
Jack